Reschedule primaries

Published: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 4:27 p.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 12:00 a.m.

Democratic Party officials acknowledge the problems in the current presidential primary schedule, but the changes they are considering are too small to make the difference needed.

A party commission has decided to recommend adding two more states to the early voting Iowa and New Hampshire. Party officials are concerned that these traditional bellwethers don't have the cultural and racial diversity necessary to have so much influence in the presidential selection process.

But the problems in the primary schedule go well beyond a lack of diversity. Under the current system, presidential nominees are chosen too early, well before most Americans have a chance to vote on them.

The primary schedule has gotten compressed while states compete with each other to schedule earlier primaries and caucuses so they can maximize their input on the election and the attention they gather from the candidates and the news media.

Great importance is placed on winning the first few contests. Front-runners are chosen quickly, and they soon become the apparent nominees.

In the previous two elections, the major party nominations were practically secured before many states, particularly large states, had a chance to vote.

That leaves many Americans out of the nomination process. They are left to choose between a couple of nominees that have been chosen by a minority of the country in a few early-voting states.

Adding two more states to this early voting won't solve the problem. A better solution was offered to the major parties a few years ago, but they rejected it.

The proposal involved rescheduling all primaries so that the smallest states voted first, middle-size states next and large states last. Such a schedule would delay the point at which any candidate could secure enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

It would lengthen the process, letting more Americans take part. And it would place small states first, where candidates could campaign without raising huge amounts of money.

Both parties should take another look at this proposal and establish a more democratic presidential primary process.

<p>Democratic Party officials acknowledge the problems in the current presidential primary schedule, but the changes they are considering are too small to make the difference needed.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>A party commission has decided to recommend adding two more states to the early voting Iowa and New Hampshire. Party officials are concerned that these traditional bellwethers don't have the cultural and racial diversity necessary to have so much influence in the presidential selection process.</p><p>But the problems in the primary schedule go well beyond a lack of diversity. Under the current system, presidential nominees are chosen too early, well before most Americans have a chance to vote on them.</p><p>The primary schedule has gotten compressed while states compete with each other to schedule earlier primaries and caucuses so they can maximize their input on the election and the attention they gather from the candidates and the news media.</p><p>Great importance is placed on winning the first few contests. Front-runners are chosen quickly, and they soon become the apparent nominees.</p><p>In the previous two elections, the major party nominations were practically secured before many states, particularly large states, had a chance to vote.</p><p>That leaves many Americans out of the nomination process. They are left to choose between a couple of nominees that have been chosen by a minority of the country in a few early-voting states.</p><p>Adding two more states to this early voting won't solve the problem. A better solution was offered to the major parties a few years ago, but they rejected it.</p><p>The proposal involved rescheduling all primaries so that the smallest states voted first, middle-size states next and large states last. Such a schedule would delay the point at which any candidate could secure enough delegates to clinch the nomination.</p><p>It would lengthen the process, letting more Americans take part. And it would place small states first, where candidates could campaign without raising huge amounts of money.</p><p>Both parties should take another look at this proposal and establish a more democratic presidential primary process.</p>